Psyxwar's Biology 3/4 Question Thread

[psyxwar]

Damn biology is so complex.

Has anybody done the pGLO transformation SAC (either this year of previously)? I'm not sure what kind of questions to expect for this.

[vox nihili]

Damn biology is so complex.

Has anybody done the pGLO transformation SAC (either this year of previously)? I'm not sure what kind of questions to expect for this.

Haven't had it, but the SAC we had that included some pGLO stuff asked about the particular molecular techniques that occur to insert it, and then the practical reasons as to why pGLO is inserted. What it achieves and so on.

[psyxwar]

http://imgur.com/zjmexnG

How do I work out this is a sex-linked recessive trait? Why isn't autosomal recessive correct?

[vox nihili]

http://imgur.com/zjmexnG

How do I work out this is a sex-linked recessive trait? Why isn't autosomal recessive correct?

I've drawn up the pedigree as though it were autosomal recessive and that does work as well. It's a shitty pedigree (unless I have made a mistake of course). It's just more likely that it's sex linked recessive because it's only popping up in the blokes.

[psyxwar]

I've drawn up the pedigree as though it were autosomal recessive and that does work as well. It's a shitty pedigree (unless I have made a mistake of course). It's just more likely that it's sex linked recessive because it's only popping up in the blokes.

Yeah it worked for me too, as I tried autosomal recessive first and it worked so I thought nothing of it lol.

Would VCAA have questions where either option could be right?

[Yacoubb]

Yeah it worked for me too, as I tried autosomal recessive first and it worked so I thought nothing of it lol.

Would VCAA have questions where either option could be right?

I think the phrase ''most likely" in the question gives the hint. If there are more males affected than females, the trait is X-linked recessive. If there are roughly an equal number of males and females affected with the trait, its autosomal recessive.

[psyxwar]

I think the phrase ''most likely" in the question gives the hint. If there are more males affected than females, the trait is X-linked recessive. If there are roughly an equal number of males and females affected with the trait, its autosomal recessive.

but frequency in a sample size so small isn't indicative of anything

[vox nihili]

but frequency in a sample size so small isn't indicative of anything

You're quite right, randomness could easily generate this effect.

[Yacoubb]

You're quite right, randomness could easily generate this effect.

But wouldn't it only be reasonable to assume that if it is so difficult to distinguish between whether a particular trait is autosomal or X-linked recessive that the possibility of chance would be omitted?

[vox nihili]

But wouldn't it only be reasonable to assume that if it is so difficult to distinguish between whether a particular trait is autosomal or X-linked recessive that the possibility of chance would be omitted?

I'm fairly sure you can draw a pedigree that allows you to distinguish between the two with certainty. At very least, the pedigree could be a little clearer on it.

[psyxwar]

I'm fairly sure you can draw a pedigree that allows you to distinguish between the two with certainty. At very least, the pedigree could be a little clearer on it.

Yeah, for example something like all sons of affected mother being affected would be a bit more conclusive (they weren't even any affected mothers in this one).

[psyxwar]

Can someone explain how biogeography is evidence for evolution?

[psyxwar]

Are we still rolling with "humans and neanderthals never interbred" in VCE bio?

[vox nihili]

Are we still rolling with "humans and neanderthals never interbred" in VCE bio?

Yep

[psyxwar]

Is saying the "dominant allele" incorrect terminology? Would I have to say "the allele coding for the dominant trait"?